We love this! Right now the incentives are wrong. Contractors are paid per person, per day, which creates the wrong incentives.

Consider a business model based on per day an individual did not recidivate, pro-rated by a prediction model for initial likelihood of recidivism, and severity of crime.

This would perhaps ascribe a number for level of difficulty, and an initial estimate for how hard the case is.

Keep in mind that a convicted offender on the streets may suffer from a potential for revenge and retaliation, and thus is possibly safer in jail, however horrible jail may be. This would augment a recidivism predictor further, if you cannot isolate them from their victims, should victims be bitter about the perception of your service lacking punitive action.

Well, it wouldn't be recidivism, but rather if the accused committed another crime prior to their trial date. Or, if they missed their trial date.

It's easy to keep getting confused around if we're dealing with accused criminals or convicted felons, as both are in jail. Sounds like Promise is focusing on the accused.

Want to sell bonds that mature when the group of monitored individuals is NOT incarcerated? I’m asking about the payment logistics... it’s a boring but important($$$) part.

Not necessarily. That gives them a financial incentive to send people their algorithms deem "iffy" to jail instead of accepting them into the program.

The read I have is that they are aiming downstream of the detention decision, providing services related to probation and parole.

I wouldn't be real surprised if their initial targets are places that have large, established probation systems, offering the tech as an aid to government employed probation officers. Easier than taking on legal responsibility for the probationers.

Yes this would be a very interesting and ethical incentive model to explore.

For anyone wondering, this is definitely sarcasm.